Does anyone know what camera does Unbox Therapy use?
The quality is so good and the resolution goes up to 4k.
Sony a7ii?
GH4?
I've made a few promo-videos for someone myself with a 6D.
I shoot in auto and get kinda shitty quality, although it's 1080p24fps.
bump for answers
>>2845970
>I shoot in auto
>and get kinda shitty quality
may these two things be correlated?
>although it's 1080p24fps.
do you do any kind of color correction, noise reduction and so on?
I have no clue what camera he's using but from that still his setup includes very good lighting
If you had lightning that good your videos would likely be much better, and if you want to have more possibilities in post use magic lantern
in any case, use the video thread
>>2845970
Much more important than his camera will be the lighting, the lens, the settings, and processing.
>>2845990
this
>>2845987
Should I keep using my 6D + lightning + post production or should I invest in something better like a GH4 or Sony or BMPCC and do the rest?
I am not that familiar with lightning, although I've looked up some three-point lightning tips. Could anyone suggest a good, affordable lightning kit? Really trying to look into it.
>>2846017
Use the camera you have. The camera is not your bottleneck if you don't understand lighting, and getting a new one will do nothing to get your footage to look like the shot in the OP. If you keep doing the same lighting, the same content, the same processing, the results will look exactly the same, no matter what camera you're using.
>>2845970
>Sony a7ii?
>GH4?
fuckin' lol. Why would a channel with 4.5 million subscribers be using consumer cameras?
If I had to bet, they're either using Black Magic cinema or maybe MAYBE a RED.
>>2846017
Work on your lightning and post first, see what you can get out of your 6D. Invest in another camera if you feel like lightning and post is good, but your results still lack.
No idea about video kits sorry, ask /gear/ or /vid/ if you don't get any help here
>>2846026
Because he's opening boxes in a controlled environment. Why the fuck would they need anything other than a GH4 for it?
>>2846031
Because the more expensive camera has better image quality? Because they're competing against other channels who are also using expensive cameras? Because a dedicated video camera is better for a professional production?
>>2846037
Again, we're back at OP's question. The camera he uses is not so important. No, improving the video quality past this level won't get him more subscribers and more money.
>>2846037
>Because the more expensive camera has better image quality?
Once you can contain all of the information on your scene in one go, "better image quality" is useless. If you only need 40 feet of rope to reach the bottom of a well, buying a 500 foot rope is "better" but useless.
You think that people watch that shit because the camera they used is expensive? How fucked are your priorities? For that production, a dedicated video camera would be the same, or possibly worse, once you start comparing pricing, maintenance, and the tech required to run it.
It's literally a guy opening boxes in controlled environments with nicely set up lights. They could probably shoot it on a phone and it would look excellent.
>>2846054
Wrong. Yes, the look can be achieved with several other cameras, but what I was implying to was the QUALITY.
That you get blurry screen if you aren't in full screen because the, again, quality and resolution is so good.
My post wasn't about the damn look, it was about the quality, the "why can I see every little hair of his beard so well?".
>>2846067
Because it's lit well, processed well, exported well, uploaded well.
That look is totally possible with 1080p. The quality of the light, and the way the footage was shot and processed are what you need.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, and by your own admission, have very little experience, Your direct quote was "I shoot in auto" so you might want to try a little humility, rather than throwing out things like "wrong"
I do this all fucking day, 6 days a week, with a whole range of cameras, lights, and setups. 4K isn't exactly a meme, but it isn't the incredible life changing footage transforming miracle that inexperienced people think it is.
Shoot 1080p with a correct framerate, a great lens with the right focal length (the OP is very close up and wide, probably around 2-3 feet away), process it well to support detail and your footage will look just as nice.
>>2846067
>quality and resolution is so good.
Just to toss it out there, 4K footage is only about 8 megapixels. That's the resolution you get in a photo out of a rebel Xt. It's not some game changing incredible high res thing. You are seeing the detail because of the way the light is falling, and because of the contrast added to the footage.
Post some of your own footage, as well as the settings you used to capture it, and we can tell you exactly why it doesn't look the same as what you're seeing here.
>>2846050
OP's question was literally "Does anyone know what camera does Unbox Therapy use?"
It wasn't "Can you guys go on a one-sided diatribe for me? Can you espouse your poorfag opinions about how Unbox Therapy doesn't need to use cameras that I can't afford?"
This board sometimes. Shake my head.
>>2846084
"no"
Uses 3 GH4
Has a A7SII in inventory.
>>2846094
If this is right, I guessed it. Thanks!
>>2846084
You must appreciate how many slack jawed yokels come through here asking DUDE HOW CAN I GET MY SHIT TO LOOK LIKE THIS I NEED THOSE LIKES
No one with that mindset will go and pick up a GH4 or BMPCC and be able to recreate the look of a given video just by telling them which camera they used. In any case us providing the camera type didn't help because >>2846017 they fucking went and asked for more advice anyway.
If OP can't make a video look as good as the shit in his op picture (which by the way looks fucking atrocious) with a 6D then it's not the camera holding them back
>>2846037
>the more expensive camera has better image quality?
the money you spend when you buy a high end RED or ARRI you're spending much of your money in the ability to use cine lenses natively, to plug SSDs in there, have good RAW video files in these SSDs, see what you're doing through a clear monitor or practically angled viewfinder and stuff like that
of course image quality's good but if the camera has to be still you don't need anything more than an a7sII + external recorder
>>2846067
>Yes, the look can be achieved with several other cameras, but what I was implying to was the QUALITY.
whatever good 4k camera will give you that quality
ffs you're compressing videos for youtube, how high quality recording do you think you need
>That you get blurry screen if you aren't in full screen because you're reducing the "reproduction size" of a hi res video without interpolation, which happens with whatever hi res video and also images
ftfy
>My post wasn't about the damn look, it was about the quality
what you're talking about is looks, because if you shot a poorly lit vid in 4k, edited it badly and compressed it badly, you wouldn't be able to see every little hair of his beard
just be a decent guy and read about fucking lighting
two or three octaboxes with stands will set you back of some €200
then try stuff, learn to set everything up and produce better vids with your camera
lights I have no clue, I only shot stills
also learn to post process your shit
if you go into the post processing thread you'll see how much results can vary and how important it can be
>>2846070
>I do this all fucking day, 6 days a week
ah so could you be bothered to point out some good lights that can be had for cheap?
>>2846037
>the more expensive camera has better image quality
mandatory
>>2846122
>comparing fucking out of focus with something that's perfectly in focus
>>2846128
They are perfectly in focus, just magnified to 300%.
At 100% all 3 look fine.
>>2846122
>>2846138
Nope, he simply got two of them out of focus.
Different sizes of sensors modify DoF and the idiot didn't adjust for it at all.
A Micro-Four-Thirds or cellphone camera automatically has an extremely wide DoF, so you can't blur backgrounds for shit.
That is their #1 flaw.
So of-fucking-course if you do a zoom in of the corner of the scene you'll actually see the DoF on the 35mm sensor and won't see the DoF on the shitty GH4 micro-sensor.
He uses GH4s for that studio stuff with Atoms Ninjas or Shogun can't recall
